Compromise in Non-Compoundable Offences: Admissible or not

INTRODUCTION:

When trial gets un-bearable, parties decide to settle their issue mutually. Irrespective of its nature; Criminal or Civil, parties can resolve their dispute with settlement. Settlement is the key that eases the sufferings of both parties. It can be any type of suffering-Medically, mentally, economically, and others. But, a case on trial before a court can not be settled out of the court. And, the court does not allow for settlement or compromise in Non-compoundable offences, Offences where the nature is severe and left a huge impact On society-courts have discretionary Power to whether to accept compromise Request or reject.

This Article mentions basic distinction b/w compoundable & non-compoundable offence and admissibility of the compromise in Non-compoundable offences with a analysing higher and Apex courts judgments.

Compoundable offences – Sec. 320 of the CrPC, defines / mentions compoundable offences. These offences are less serious in nature and can be settled with prior intention. For example- trespass, defamation, theft, assault, cheating, etc.

Non-compoundable offences – Sec. 320 of the CrPC, mentions a list of compoundable offences, and rest are considered as Non-Compoundable Offences. For example- murder, dowry death, rape, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons, etc.

Distinction between Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offences 

District & Session Court’s power to quash Criminal proceedings –

District & Session Court do not have inherent power like Higher Courts to quash Criminal proceedings. Only High Court’s and the Apex court have power inherently to compound, even Non-Compoundable Offences. But, it has the statutory power to discharge an accused u/s 227, 239, or 245 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973 (now as 250, 262 & 269 of the BNSS) if it finds the charges groundless after reviewing the police report or complaint.

Inherent Power of High Court –

Section 482 of the CrPC confers powers on the High Court to make any order which it deems necessary to give effect to any order under the code, prevent the abuse of the process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.

Core Objectives-

1. To prevent the abuse of the process of any court of law;
2. To secure the ends of justice in situations where formal procedures would result in oppression.
3. To give explicit effect to orders issued under the CrPC.

Supreme Court on Compounding Criminal proceedings –

Civil wrongs only harm one person, so the law simply makes the wrongdoer pay compensation to that person. Criminal offences are different, they harm society as a whole, not just the victim. That’s why the punishment isn’t just about the individual; it’s meant to create a deterrent effect on everyone. This is also why most criminal offences cannot be “compounded” (settled privately between the parties and dropped). Only minor, less serious offences, the ones that don’t seriously threaten public order or safety are allowed to be compounded.

Leading Precedents –

Gian Singh vs State of Punjab, 2012[1] –

• The Inherent powers u/s 482 of the CrPC could not be invoked to bypass sec. 320 of the code.
• But, In this case it was held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent Powers could quash Criminal proceedings or fir or complaint and sec. 320 of the code did not limit or affect the powers under sec. 482 of the CrPC.

In an SLP, 2009[2] –

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that, some or all of the following tests may be relevant to decide whether to quash or not to quash the Criminal proceedings in a given case –

• the nature & gravity of case;
• does the dispute reflect overwhelming and pre-dominantly civil favour;
• would the quashing involve settlement of entire or almost the entire dispute;
• the compromise or settlement between parties and/or other facts and the circumstances render possibility of conviction remote and bleak;
• not to quash would cause to extreme injustice and would not serve ends to justice and;
• not to quash would result in abuse of process of court.

Dalbir Singh & ors. vs State of Punjab & Anr, 2015 [3]–

Court quashed the proceedings because the complaint and accused settled the dispute by marrying each other. Court prioritise the welfare of the victim.

Shimbhu & Anr. vs State of Haryana, 2013[4] –

In this case, Applicants gang raped victim for 2 days. Courts sentenced the accused for rigorous imprisonment. A Compromise held between victim and accused out of the court. But, when accused approached the SC for reduction of their sentence on the basis of compromise in affidavit.

The Appeal was denied saying – there is no reasonable ground. There must be an adequate reason to entertain and lessen the sentence. Rape is a heinous crime that lefts an impact on society. It is a crime against the State, Victim and Society.

Narendra & Anr. vs State of Punjab, 2014[5] –

Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.

Conclusion –

Minor offences against an individual are usually compoundable, meaning the two parties can settle the matter between themselves easily. However, whether the High Court has the power to allow compounding of non-compoundable offences was once a debated issue, one that the Supreme Court has now settled.

Earlier, High Courts were reluctant to permit any settlement in non-compoundable cases. Over time, the Supreme Court laid down clear guidelines in the Narendra Singh case, directing courts to consider factors such as: whether the offence is civil in nature, how serious it is, whether Section 307 (attempt to murder) is involved, whether any special law applies, and the accused’s past conduct and history. Based on these guidelines, the High Court can use its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to allow settlement even in non-compoundable cases.

Such compounding is permitted only for offences that are not extremely serious and don’t pose a threat to public safety or cause irreversible harm. And even if a court allows a settlement, it can later reverse that decision if it turns out the settlement was based on false or invalid claims.

Reference –

• The Criminal procedure code, 1973;
• The Indian penal Code, 1860;
• https://www.sci.gov.in/
• https://www.scconline.com/

[1] 2012(10)SCC303

[2] SLP(CrL.) No. 6324 of 2009

[3] Cri. Misc. No. – M-27509 of 2015

[4] AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 739

[5] Criminal Appeal No. 686/2014